A Child's Right

Gingrich and Santorum Create War on Fathers

http://ping.fm/8ClVK
Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum led the effort to make the states create non-custodial parents and lock-up poor fathers. Title IV-D was modified to say that ALL mothers who are on welfare who could possibly ever be on welfare are to get tax payer provided Child Support enforcement. Those mothers who are on welfare where to have their child support orders turned over to the state to enforce with encarceration and confescation of property their tools to enforce bloated income sharing support orders.

Have we created a Matriarchy that is bankrupting nations, abusing children?

Have we created a Matriarchy that is bankrupting nations, abusing children?

The new feminism (second wave [the radicals]) who have to be a part of everything male while acting in a misandric fashion are creating a sadistic Matriarchy across the globe. If Men and women split everything 50/50 and women get 50% of the man's 50 and 7/8ths of the remaining twenty five
percent as special entitlements that equals 97.25% - maybe that is why females make the majority of retail purchases.

I can envision men reading this crossing their legs, wringing their hands uncomfortably almost whining: I hope they read the rest of this, check out the links, STOP, breathe and then reflect: the truth is in the studies. We have for decades lazily subscribed to urban myth even though lies have been
proven and dispelled:

<http://dadsofmichigan.blogspot.com/2011/07/warshak-brief-in-lamagusa.html>

Warshak

Apparently the Jewish community is concerned with a dwindling male membership <http://dadsofmichigan.blogspot.com/2011/07/end-of-jewish-men.html>
The end of Jewish Men are not the Protestant and Catholic Communities facing the same situation?

Not all single mothers are sadistic but images of Britney, Lindsey and Casey should wake us up a little simply look up female violence on You Tube . "`Oh say it is not true" exclaim the gentlemen twisting in their seats, perhaps, but this material is not made up <http://antimisandry.com/abuse-dv/>
Bringing Attention to Abuse By Females it is true Google has tried to censor such material as hate speech preferring homosexual friendly comments (sorry their editorial preference and a true statement simply ask bloggers).

All mothers probably are not that violent despite the ones we have seen grabbing their children by the arm in the grocery store, we do know (even if we are afraid to discuss it) at least some moms utilize the electronic babysitter, we have been talking about it for decades, but could it lead to this: <http://westmichigandad.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/should-parents-of-obese-kids-lose-custody/>

Should parents of obese kids lose custody?

* We know Fathers petition Courts for custody, joint custody, shared custody, parenting time, access to their children everyday, and, everyday leave the Court Room broken hearted despite the evidence demonstrating the criticality of fathers to their children's development,

<http://antimisandry.com/forums/> Forum

<http://antimisandry.com/forums/#wisdom-library> . Wisdom Library

<http://antimisandry.com/facts-figures/> . Facts and Figures

<http://antimisandry.com/essential/> . Essential There are only about one hundred and six entries there you could also try <http://westmichigandad.wordpress.com/research/>
Research there are only thirty-eight hyper-linked references there.

The Public Broadcast System actually airs programming that touches upon religion, last weekend I listened to a Catholic Bishop lamenting the injury upon all of those poor families that the current budget debacle will cause.
I am certain the Bishop truly had in mind social injustice to less fortunate people _ I truly believe the Bishop had no conception at all he really is lamenting a minor loss in funding for the enabling of single mother homes whilst depriving children of their fathers.

There is no logic in promoting Fatherhood whilst denigrating Fathers. There is no logic in promoting a social system that separates children from their fathers whilst costing America three hundred thirty-six billion dollars annually Sex, <http://dadsofmichigan.blogspot.com/2011/07/sex-money.html>
money.and national bankruptcies.

Perhaps no one really cares enough to have read this far, or someone is yawning, or instead of twisting in their seat someone has urinated, can we seriously imagine grown adults so afraid of women, there are afraid to read this?

Mothers are sacred, mothers are scary, what am I thinking, well I am not the happiest camper in the entire world but I am not alone; <http://westmichigandad.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/mothers-day-2011-not-so-purdy-americass-pbs-documentary/>
Mother's Day 2011: not so Purdy - Americas's PBS documentary, <http://dadsofmichigan.blogspot.com/2011/07/mother-mother-where-are-you.html>
Mother, mother, where are you?, Another Broken Heart <http://antimisandry.com/father-children/another-broken-heart-40104.html#post266672> truth to tell this is but a minor glimpse of the anecdotal evidence.

As the men continue to cringe I can imagine someone uttering a derogatory remark. Do we even know how to educate males STOP, please do not be so sure about yourself, have you read anything found here: <http://www.michaelgurian.com/books_dvds.html>
Michael Gurian , any of these Books for Fathers .
<http://dadsofmichigan.blogspot.com/p/books-for-fathers.html>
Do we really know what we are advocating for: In the matter of: <http://dadsofmichigan.blogspot.com/2011/07/in-matter-of-pornography-v-romantic.html>
pornography v, romantic fantasies , <http://dadsofmichigan.blogspot.com/2011/07/parental-alienation.html>

Parental Alienation
<http://dadsofmichigan.blogspot.com/2011/07/in-our-good-do-we-do-bad.html>
In our good do we do bad Long letter, nothing is simple, our children deserve their Fathers, our Boys
deserve to be treated for who they are, our Congregations, Synagogues and Parishes deserve participation from both sexes.

DADS AND MOMS PAC ANNOUNCES FAMILY PUBLIC POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2011

For Release:     Contact:
March 14, 2011    DADS and Moms PAC
    248-467-1204

DADS AND MOMS PAC
ANNOUNCES FAMILY PUBLIC POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2011

Advocating for family preservation, shared parenting, child support reform and other key family issues during the current legislative session       
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI – Dads and Moms PAC, a responsible family and fatherhood education and advocacy organization, today released their legislative agenda for 2011.  The organization consulted with US and Michigan Legislators, US Department of Health and Human Services, Michigan Judges and Lawyers, Family Service Counselors, Heritage Foundation, National Center for Fathering, MOMS of Michigan, Children Need Both Parents, Fathers a Childs Rights, Fathers For Equal Rights, Family Rights Coalition, American Coalition of Fathers and Children, and the Children’s Rights Council in preparing the public policy agenda.  The proposed agenda will save the state a billion dollars in expenses each year.
Dads and Moms PAC announced the focus of their public policy agenda with the follows issues: 
•    Sharing Parenting
•    Parenting Time Guidelines
•    Paternity
•    Parenting Plans
•    Family Education Program
•    Child Support
“We will continue to work this year on progressive legislation and reforms that will help families to stay together and provide the best interest of children with the best opportunities available,” said James Semerad, Washington DC Representative of Dads of Michigan PAC.  For more information or interviews, please call 248-467-1204
####
Dads and Moms PAC is a responsible family preservation education and advocacy organization dedicated to keeping both biological parents actively engaged in the lives of their children despite divorce and custody, in most instances.  We believe men and women should be viewed equally under the law and our credo is: "fathers are responsible parents too…because the best parent is both parents."

Midwest Fathers Conference Partnership for Dads

Midwest Fathers Conference Partnership for Dads http://ping.fm/UNCwf

Michigan Supreme Court to Hear Support Case

MI: Non-Payment of Child Support on Trial http://ping.fm/tOW6P

Torm Howse on SCOTUS Action on Child Support Enforcement

Child Support Enforcement on Trail at the SCOTUS http://ping.fm/FL3zi

    [direct links to the actual petition, some amicus briefs, and major media stories are included below]
    =======
    
    (Washington, DC) -- On November 1st, 2010, the United States Supreme Court finally **GRANTED** direct review over the various States' unconstitutional patterns and practices of repeatedly jailing beat-dead [indigent] noncustodial parents under child support "contempt" and without providing the otherwise well-established right to have defense counsel appointed them.
    
    Groups filing amicus briefs in NCP Turner's support, so far (hint, hint..), have included the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, and The Constitution Project.  There are valid Letters from both principal opposing parties in this case, welcoming any and all amicus briefs, already on file with the Clerk of the US Supreme Court.
    
    Amazingly, some of the professional amicus briefs filed by these groups have come straight out against this "modern form of debtor's prison" with very strong arguments, backed with solid case law... very promising, VERY exciting for all NCPs!!
    
    While emerging from a plainly unconstitutional ruling of the South Carolina Supreme Court, which inexplicably affirmed the draconian tactics used repeatedly upon NCP Michael Turner, the various amicus briefs filed so far are *already* implicating like ALL of the States -- in general -- and particularly THESE seven (7) other States for being in similar noncompliance with indigent civil rights, regarding appointments of defense counsel within contempt and/or similar state court actions:
    
    "Just four other States--Florida, Georgia, Maine, and Ohio--are in the same camp as South Carolina. Courts in three other States--Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico--have adopted a third approach, requiring trial courts to determine on a caseby-case basis whether appointment of counsel is warranted."
    
    Already, amicus briefs are involving both case law and statutes from many different States...  A couple of new individual parties have been granted leave to intervene or otherwise participate, as well.  This ***very important*** case is growing fast...  I am confident that within 60-90 days from now, you will see that at least several other major, well-known civil rights organizations, and probably some 30-40 of the various States' Attorneys General in opposition, will have filed each of their own respective amicus briefs into this case, too... maybe even all 50 of the AGs, but we'll see yet how it goes...
    
    Accordingly, *now* is the time for interested family rights legal scholars/organizations to crank out their own amicus briefs, and/or select representative plaintiff(s)/intervenor(s) to enter directly into this case -- either way, and hopefully both ways!
    
    
    PROPOSAL:
    ==========
    
    Sets of three (3) different-named family rights organizations should work together on 2-3 related constitutional/legal issues, and submit JOINTLY-NAMED amicus briefs.  Even better, at least one male and one female, or more, who all happen to belong to, or work with, two or three different-named family rights organizations, should do the similar thing and move jointly to directly intervene, again with a purposefully JOINTLY-NAMED legal package submitted.
    
    This important case has been filed primarily over the deprivation of the right to indigent defense counsel, the related "ability to pay" aspect in child support contempt proceedings, the jailings, and that general area of family court issues.  However, in the recent Order by the US Supreme Court on Nov. 1st, the Court requested parties/amicus to also brief the new additional Question -- "whether or not" the US Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the ruling of the SC Supreme Court (duh...).
    
    It is this Question that has "opened up the door" to creative minds, because there are at least *several* legal angles that combine: providing the Court its own federal jurisdiction, by raising any *directly-related* constitutional issues, such as:
    
    (1) -- the reason that South Carolina's actions are sooo unlawful against NCP Turner, is because South Carolina has directly violated both federal and its own state CCPA laws (Consumer Credit Protection Act), by issuing ANY child support orders against someone who the state court itself classified as "unemployed", since CCPA laws mandate that those child support orders exceeding max percentages of NCP Turner's any available "disposable" income (i.e., none..) are simply VOID, in the first place.  In other words, most ALL of the States are routinely ignoring the mandatory protections of CCPA, and issuing onerous orders that far exceed the limits against available "disposable" income percentages, and all those orders are VOID, in the first place, and *cannot* be enforced, ever..., per the clearly express mandate of both federal *and* state CCPA laws!
    
    (2) -- the federal Congress never had any *valid* authority, in the first place, to ever promulgate federal laws to manage and micro-manage family units, or the individuals of family units, so NONE of those programs (Title IV-A, IV-D, IV-E, etc., etc.) should even exist, in the first place...  Family Law has *always* been the sole province of the States, and never the realm of the Federal Government...  ever.   See also, arguments within several of the pending Health Care Reform lawsuits out there, for the reality that the federal Congress has been far exceeding its Constitutional authority under the "Commerce Clause" for a long, long time...  Therefore, since Congress' Title IV-D of the Social Security Act is unconstitutional, to begin with, then it is really the Federal Government's fault that poor NCP Turner is in such a pickle, in the first place, you see, by all the "carrot and stick" programs and activities funded by federal taxdollars.  Again, ALL of the *federalizations* of Family Law are invalid.
    
    (3) -- also, the entire federalized Title IV-D child support enforcement scheme is a HUGELY fraudulent financial waste and catastrophic drain upon America, for 35 years now, costing **Trillions** of taxdollars over that span, to net back only in the very small Billions of extra C$ actually collected...  In other words, America would still have continued the prior ~80% paid in full of all child support out there, as America already had before the Fed got involved, yet, instead, America has poured out **Trillions** of taxdollars to collect only a few small extra Billions -- an actual return-of-investment that is NEGATIVE to the tune of at least hundreds-to-one, if not over 1000-to-1, in monetary LOSSES, every minute, of every hour, of every day...  The entire federal child support program is a HUGE financial fraud upon America, and always WAS..., from the mid-1970s start.
    
    and, etc., each of which gives square and solid federal jurisdiction to a US Supreme Court that already well knows that it has jurisdiction....  You may also know of one or more other strong legal challenge angles into this very important case.
    
    It also just so happens, that I have very direct and recent (May-June 2010) experience in the US Supreme Court over a few of these exact same issues, although my own client's Petition for Writ of Certiorari was another one of the 10,000 or 99% not picked this year for review (perhaps also because I scared the crap out of them with CCPA arguments, see this link):
    http://unitedcivilrights.org/worksamples/USSupCt-Pet4Cert1stAmended-CCPA.pdf  (directly relevant to THIS case)

    Therefore, the organization that I created and co-founded, United Civil Rights Councils of America, will be surely seeking to cooperate jointly with another pair of willing/participating family rights organizations, using one or more of the above theories to file into this very important case, under either an amicus angle, or the straight-up intervention method, if the right one or more people are found to be intervenors fitting this case well.  Please contact me via email directly if you are interested.
    
    
    LINKS TO LEGAL FILINGS AND ONLINE MEDIA STORIES:
    ============================================
    (provided in chronological order, more or less)
    
    Here is the original SC State Supreme Court ruling being reviewed by SCOTUS:
    http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=26793
    or, the same on FindLaw:
    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/sc-supreme-court/1522639.html
    or, the official SC advance sheet containing the ruling, with other cases:
    http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/advSheets/no122010.pdf
    
    For interest, a November 30, 2009 ACLU article on the original defiant SC Supreme Court in this case:
    http://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/aclu-urges-state-supreme-court-affirm-right-counsel-indigents
    
    The New York Times online story about this case:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/us/02scotus.html
    
    Constitutional Law Blog story about this case:
    http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/11/court-to-hear-right-to-counsel-case.html
    
    OnTheDocket's story/info/links:
    http://www.onthedocket.org/cases/2010/turner-v-price
    
    ABA Journal's article on this case:
    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme_court_accepts_case_on_right_to_lawyer_in_civil_contempt_proceedings
    
    The Nerve's *very* informative and up-to-date article, detailing the total factual background on this case well:
    http://www.thenerve.org/Comments/10-08-02/Indigent_Father_Appeals_to_U_S_Supreme_Court.aspx?searchid=e433607d-ba56-476e-8f9c-d30b56ca8640
    and, the Nerve's previous related story, published after the SC State Supreme Court's ruling was issued:
    http://thenerve.org/Comments/10-04-12/S_C_High_Court_Upholds_Jail_for_Indigent_Parents.aspx?searchid=4611e176-8e28-4062-ba54-30395ab6bdcc
    
    Here is the current SCOTUS Docket online listing:
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-10.htm
    
    Including this same Turner v Price case, an outlined organization of most/all other cases being reviewed by SCOTUS during this 2010-2011 Term - i.e., what other current SCOTUS cases might be either directly and/or indirectly related and useful:
    http://www.rashkind.com/supct.pdf
    
    One of few online places to normally get copies of, or to review, the various Briefs filed into SCOTUS cases:
    http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/unscheduled.html#1010
    (unfortunately, briefs not there for this case yet - has the Questions, though)
    Turner v. Price, Docket No. 10-10
    Questions Presented -- Whether the Supreme Court of South Carolina erred in holding - in conflict with twenty-two federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort - that an indigent defendant has no constitutional right to appointed counsel at a civil contempt proceeding that results in his incarceration.
    Questions presented -- In addition to the question presented by the petition the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: "does this US Supreme Court have jurisdiction to review the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court?"
    
    BRIEFS FOUND ONLINE:
    The original Turner petition for writ of certiorari in the US Supreme Court (3.67mb):
    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Pet.10-10.pdf
    The older combo ACLU-NACDL-etc-etc amicus brief, filed in NCP Turner's support, at the SC State Supreme Court:
    http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/newsissues/amicus_attachments/$FILE/PricevTurner_Amicus.pdf
    Their newer amicus brief filed into the US Supreme Court recently:
    http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/newsissues/amicus_attachments/$FILE/Turner_Amicus.pdf
    Snipets/links to all of NACDL's current/recent briefs, fyi:
    http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/newsissues/Amicus?opendocument
    An amicus brief filed by The Constitution Project into this SCOTUS case:
    http://www.constitutionproject.org/manage/file/476.pdf or
    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/AmConstProj.10-10.pdf (~2.5mb)
    
    One of the authorities cited in the original Petition for Writ of Certiorari, the Urban Institute's report on child support arrears:
    http://www.urban.org/publications/1001242.html (excerpt, with link for full report download in PDF)
    
    The recent US Supreme Court's interim/new Order, from the free version of Lexus-Nexus, i.e, http://LexisOne.com
    2010 U.S. LEXIS 8485,*
    Michael D. Turner, Petitioner v. Rebecca Price, et al.
    No. 10-10.
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    2010 U.S. LEXIS 8485
    November 1, 2010, Decided
    PRIOR HISTORY:   Price v. Turner, 387 S.C. 142, 691 S.E.2d 470, 2010 S.C. LEXIS 83 (S.C., 2010)
    JUDGES: [*1] Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan.
    OPINION:
    The motion of Larry E. Price, Sr. for leave to intervene is granted. The motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In addition to the question presented by the petition the parties is directed to brief and argue the following question: "Does the Court have jurisdiction to review the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court?"
    
    
    Related, I have provided this online Publix Law Schools legal learning center, free for everyone's use and benefit:
    http://unitedcivilrights.org/publixlaw.html
    
    
    
    Sincerest Regards,
    ------------------------------------------
    Mr. Torm Howse
    Co-Founder, National Board Director, Instructor,
    United Civil Rights Councils of America
    http://unitedcivilrights.org
    Co-Founder, National Board Director, Trustee,
    Parental Alienation Awareness Organization - US
    http://paao-us.com
    Founder, Owner, President,
    The FIDO Network
    http://fidonetwork.com
    General Contact:
    (317) 286-2538 office
    (888) 738-4643 fax
    [email protected]
    
    Increase Your FAITH!

Civil Rights

Civil Rights

Understanding Civil Rights
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/index.html>

Enforcement Activities and Results
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/activities/index.html>

Resources <http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/resources/index.html>

How to File a Complaint
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/complaints/index.html>

Frequently Asked Questions
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/index.html>

News <http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/news/index.html> Archive

<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/images/sys_images/mbottomright.gif>

Civil Rights FAQs

* General Civil Rights Questions
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/index.html#general>
* Filing a Civil Rights Complaint
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/index.html#filing>
* Civil Rights Complaint Procedures
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/index.html#civil>
* Applicability of Title VI for Providers
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/index.html#titleVI>
* Other Civil Rights Sources for Assistance
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/index.html#other>

General Civil Rights Questions

* What <http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/index.html> are civil
rights?
* What can I do if I
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/General%20Questions/102.html>
belive my civil rights have been violated?

Filing a Civil Rights Complaint

* How do I file a civil rights complaint?
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Filing%20a%20Complaint/201.html>
* What information must be provided to file a
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Filing%20a%20Complaint/202.html>
civil rights complaint?
* What is the time limit for filing a civil
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Filing%20a%20Complaint/203.html>
rights complaint?
* Where do I file a civil rights complaint?
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Filing%20a%20Complaint/204.html>
* Who can file a civil rights complaint?
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Filing%20a%20Complaint/205.html>

Civil Rights Complaint Procedures

* What is
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Complaint%20Procedures/301.html>
"Federal financial assistance" for purposes of civil rights complaints
handled by OCR?
* Does OCR investigate civil rights complaints
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Complaint%20Procedures/302.html>
against programs that provide free or reduced cost health care?
* How does OCR investigate a civil rights
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Complaint%20Procedures/303.html>
complaint?
* Does OCR represent me in my complaint?
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Complaint%20Procedures/304.html>
* Can I
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Complaint%20Procedures/305.html>
pursue a private court action if I have filed a civil rights complaint?
* How does OCR respond to my concern for
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Complaint%20Procedures/306.html>
privacy & confidentiality?
* What geographic area does OCR cover
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Complaint%20Procedures/307.html> ?

Applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964) for Medicaid, CHIP,
& Medicare Providers

* What do Title VI and its implementing
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Applicability%20of%20Title%20VI%20fo
r%20Providers/401.html> regulations require of recipients of Federal
financial assistance?
* What is
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Applicability%20of%20Title%20VI%20fo
r%20Providers/401.html> "Federal financial assistance" for purposes of civil
rights complaints handled by OCR?
* Are Medicaid, CHIP,
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Applicability%20of%20Title%20VI%20fo
r%20Providers/403.html> & Medicare, considered Federal financial assistance?

* What are examples of
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Applicability%20of%20Title%20VI%20fo
r%20Providers/404.html> "recipients" of Federal financial assistance?
* Must Medicaid, CHIP, and Medicare Part A
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Applicability%20of%20Title%20VI%20fo
r%20Providers/405.html> providers, and organizations offering Medicare Part
C and Part D plans, provide interpreters for limited English proficient
(LEP) beneficiaries and translate their documents into languages other than
English?
* How can States get Federal funds to help pay
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Applicability%20of%20Title%20VI%20fo
r%20Providers/406.html> for language services?

Other Civil Rights Sources for Assistance

* What happens if OCR can
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Other%20Civil%20Rights%20Sources/501
.html> 't help me?
* What other Federal agencies exist to protect
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Other%20Civil%20Rights%20Sources/502
.html> my civil rights?
* If OCR can't represent me, can the ACLU help?
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Other%20Civil%20Rights%20Sources/503
.html>
* Why can
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Other%20Civil%20Rights%20Sources/504
.html> 't OCR help me, if my constitutional & human rights have been
violated?
* I was fired from my job at the local
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Other%20Civil%20Rights%20Sources/505
.html> supermarket because of my age. Why can't OCR accept my complaint?
* I have a complaint against a major university
<http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/faq/Other%20Civil%20Rights%20Sources/506
.html> and was told by OCR to file with the U.S. Department of Education.
Why?

--
Dennis Lawrence
Child and Family Rights Advocate
www.miparentalrights.ning.com
616-848-0664

Michigan Parental Rights Resolution HCR 45 Action

Dear Friend of Parental Rights in Michigan,

Through your phone calls and the diligent efforts of our allies at
Citizens Alliance for Life and Liberty (CALL), a resolution calling
for the Parental Rights Amendment has made significant progress in the
Michigan legislature. Currently, the resolution - HCR 45  - has 60
cosponsors in the 110-member House, a clear majority.

However, HCR 45, championed by Rep. Dave Agema, must pass the House
Judiciary Committee to reach the floor for a vote, and that committee
is headed by Rep. Mark Meadows. As the chairman, Rep. Meadows has the
authority to decide whether the resolution will receive a hearing, and
whether or not it will be put to a committee vote.

We believe HCR 45 will pass if we can get it to a vote, so we need
your help to pursuade Rep. Meadows to give it that chance.

Next Thurs., April 29, at 11:30 Director Steven Dennison of CALL has a
30-minute appointment with Rep. Meadows to discuss this issue. April
29 is also Rep. Meadows' birthday.

Here, then, is what we need you to do:

Send a card as soon as possible wishing the Representative a happy
birthday;
Include in it a cordial request that he grant HCR 45 a vote in the
Judiciary Committee
Forward this email to as many friends and family members in Michigan
as you can and ask them to join you.
Please send your cards to:

The Honorable Representative Mark S. Meadows
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514.

Rep. Meadows may not be your local representative, but he represents
all of Michigan as the chair of the Judiciary Committee, especially in
deciding on matters like HCR 45. Your efforts are invaluable in
helping Michigan to pass this resolution in support of parental rights.

Sincerely,

Jason Heki
Regional Coordinator

F & F Introduces 5th CA. Family Court Reform Bill

Fathers & Families’ mission is to protect children’s right to the love and care of both parents after divorce or separation. One of the ways fit parents are sometimes driven to the margins of their children’s lives is by one parent using the other parent’s disability or partial disability as a pretext to deny them custody or visitation with their children.

While some disabled people are truly unable to care for their children, many are not. Fathers & Families is joining with disabled rights advocates, veterans groups, and California Senator Rod Wright (D-Los Angeles) in sponsoring SB 1188 to solve this problem.

Existing California family law codes do not address the issue of disabled parents, leaving the door open for unnecessary and often expensive litigation, even in cases where the disabled parent had been successfully parenting the children for many years prior to the separation or divorce.

SB 1188 will add Section 3049 to the Family Code. It will read:

3049.  In any proceeding to determine child custody or visitation under this part, in which at least one parent is disabled as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), a court shall not use the disability of that parent as the basis of an award of custody or visitation to another party unless that party establishes by clear and convincing evidence that a grant of custody or visitation to the disabled parent would be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the child.

SB 1188 shifts the burden of proof onto the parent who raises the disability as an issue, serving as a deterrent to a parent seeking to raise the issue as a way to cause  unnecessary litigation. It also reduces disabled parents’ litigation costs and helps reduce court calendar time and costs at a time when California is struggling with budget woes.

Fathers & Families often hears from parents who have had their disability unfairly used against them in family court. If this has happened to you, please let us know by filling out our form here.

SB 1188 is the 5th California family court reform bill Fathers & Families has been instrumental in introducing this session. Last week AB 2416, a child custody reform bill, passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee unanimously and has been put on the consent calendar for the full Assembly. Other current F & F legislation includes three child support reform bills–SB 1355, SB 578, and SB 580.

This remarkable progress is no accident–Fathers & Families’ legislative representative Michael Robinson and assistant legislative representative Nicole Silverman have spent many months lobbying legislators and gathering support for our legislative agenda.

F & F is creating real, tangible family court reform today, but our deep, professional involvement in Sacramento requires funding–please contribute to the organization which fights for you by clicking here.

Together with you in the love of our children,

Glenn Sacks, MA
Executive Director, Fathers & Families

Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S.
Founder, Chairman of the Board, Fathers & Families

Melissa Hodgdon
Deputy Director, Fathers & Families

Best Interest Of The Family Radio

http://www.bestinterestofthefamily.com/
At Best Interest Of The Family Radio, we remain steadfast in our commitment to providing quality programming that educates and inspires needed Family Court Reform that unites parents with their children and exposes corruption within systems and processes that are otherwise in place to serve the needs of all families.

Never give up on your children just because a Child Protective Services (CPS) worker, Department of Human Services (DHS) agent, Friend Of The Court (FOC) worker or Family Court Judge is making subjective rulings over the lives of your children and your parental role.

Together we will bring about the change needed to reclaim our families and build an America our kids will be proud of. Tune into BEST INTEREST OF THE FAMILY Radio where we believe "Children Need Both Parents!!"

Join us for Tuesdays broadcast at 8PM est.